Sunday, February 20, 2011

Sarah Palin: Real Presidents Lead - Not Follow

This is such a crock of shit:
Will she or won’t she? If yes, when? If no, then what?

So goes Sarah Palin’s 2012 presidential flirtation.

Since the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate is in the unenviable position of having the national media analyze her every tweet and Facebook post, Sarah Palin has become a distraction to the other would-be presidential candidates, not to mention the Republican Party at large.

That’s why it’s time for her to reveal her 2012 presidential plans. Seize the moment. Take the hill. Make her move, while there are no other officially declared candidates, and Palin will enjoy every advantage afforded by the Power of Now.

Whether she chooses to run or not, Palin can harness the Power of Now to great advantage.
These people must all get hired merely because they can write, because thinking certainly ain't their strong suit! Has Pajamas Media noticed a little modern Leftist journalistic trick called "media bias" working on Palin's very life? Look, let's be clear:

Sarah Palin has been riding high by doing exactly the opposite of what these "old hands" at politics have always been suggesting - listening to them.

By ignoring their every admonition, she has become not only the Tea Party's political kingmaker but rich beyond her wildest dreams, and has all the potential in the world to grab the brass ring of the White House as well. We say Sarah Palin should stay the course, listen to her own counsel, and do whatever she thinks, whenever she thinks to do it, and let the rest of the hopefuls (who, except for Chris Christie, can't even come close to her chances) do their thing. This is hers to lose:

But - win or lose - this time it'll be on her terms.

21 comments:

  1. Sarah Palin should not run in 2012. Nor should Trump, Paul, Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, or Barbour. Not if they care about defeating the democrat virus. not if they love this country. And palin should have said 'thanks but no thanks' to McCain. (a bit like Harriet Miers to W.)

    She'd be great at rallying the troops, but terrible at being a general, wishful thinking aside. We don't need, nor can we afford, another 4 years of a celebrity-in-chief. She is categorically unqualified to be commander in chief, especially when you compare her to other people who are likely to run.

    Did I punch the sacred cow? So be it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The knapsack thing is pretty funny, I've got to admit.

    It's good to see you don't always take yourself so very seriously.

    So blog on, my funky negro friend, blog on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I hope Palin runs, because I know she'll be insanely bad for the mystic wing of the GOP who now drive the party's agenda, thus it'll be bad for the GOP in general.

    A Palin campaign will suck all the oxygen from the room, depriving any truly competent candidate (who frankly has no chance with this current GOP) of much attention.

    As long as whackjobs control the agenda of the Republicans, all they can be is a party of Againstism. Once upon a time, the GOP could credibly assert they had ideas on how to govern. Palin is the embodiment of the fact that it's no longer true. That she is a staple on Fox, and Fox is where all the GOP voters are, and Fox cannot honestly pretend to present anything but the Againstism viewpoint-- a Palin candidacy will demonstrate the GOP is no longer a national party.

    The GOP had good midterm results in a pile of local races, but as long as an idiot commands their attention, they won't be in the White House

    ReplyDelete
  4. Once upon a time, the GOP could credibly assert they had ideas on how to govern.

    That's quite the incredible statement, considering this administration's record, which will surely go down as one of the worst in American history - and that's saying something, too, coming after what most Democrats called the worst in American history. I mean, you talk like this crew actually had admirable ideas, or skills, themselves.

    And, considering what's happened to us since the Democrats took over congress, I'd say "Againstism" is governing - or aren't you following Wisconsin?

    It seems to me what the Left/Democrats/Progressives hate most is anyone "against" what they've been up to, and they think (because they were so awful) no one else can lead either - especially not someone who isn't trying to be as "sophisticated" in their thinking as they are. In other words, "common" sense is embarrassing to liberals, though it's what built this nation - not the disastrous values they espouse now. Speaking of once being able to govern, or being a national party, even a Democrat hero like JFK wouldn't stand with the Democrats of today. I see no reason why anyone else should either - and most of the nation seems to agree. They just voted Reagan the best president of modern times - not Carter, Clinton, or Obama.

    Sarah Palin will do just fine.

    Oh, and one more thing:

    You'll sound a lot more convincing when it's less obvious you're not thinking about helping the country but merely defeating us "whackjobs".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Marcus and Jim H-

    It is obvious you boys are intimidated by a strong woman-but it's okay that you are afraid, understandable in this day and age.

    Take comfort in knowing that despite all your concerns, she'll be always there to protect you even in your most fearful of days.

    Best wishes to you both.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "She'll be always there to protect you even in your most fearful of days."

    Sounds like a New Age belief, to me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Crack --I didn't think GDUBious was the worst President ever, that title in the modern era has to go to Nixon. GDUBious may have been the most inept but he wasn't worse than Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Polk or Pierce.

    We can measure his ineptness -- leaving aside waging 2 wars by borrowing from China-- by his inability to do his job and get legislation HE wanted past HIS party which didn't. He completely failed at meaningful immigration reform (compare Clinton and NAFTA, #42 triangulated w/ the opposition to get legislation moved over obstacles in his own party. Like him or hate him, Clinton knew how to govern. )

    But Nixon f-ed up domestically and internationally, on a Biblical scale Watergate and the fiasco it created Vietnam, half of the deaths are at his door). GDUBious was a pretender by comparison.

    And speaking of immigration reform: Let's not forget the guy you cite as "best" gave amnesty to millions of illegals (not the thing that talk radio called amnesty: penalties before doecumetation-- but true forgiveness). And Mr. Best was a traitor to his nation, admitting he put arms in the hands of the enemy.

    This President is doing an admirable job, and is earning my begrudging respect --under the circumstances, those circumstances including the Againstism of this GOP embodied in (since you mentioned it) the Wisconsin governor who is against legal contracts enacted under legal means.

    @Anon -- Palin isn't "strong," she's a quitter who is afraid of hard questions like "what do you read?" Maggie Thatcher was strong. Golda Meir was strong. Mother Teresa was strong. The Quitbull is brash-- big difference.

    She hasn't protected anyone, least of all her family. She postures as a "Mama Grizzly" and she couldn't keep a high school penis out of her daughter.

    Please, please, please let her run and please pretty please with sugar on top nominate her

    ReplyDelete
  8. By the way, this is how strong the Quitbull is http://wonkette.com/438825/is-sarah-palin-commenting-on-her-own-facebook-fan-page

    It looks like she has a separate Facebook account to serve as a rooting gallery for her Facebook account.

    That's the opposite of strong

    ReplyDelete
  9. CORRECTS PUNCTUATION:
    But Nixon f-ed up domestically and internationally, on a Biblical scale ( Watergate and the fiasco it created; Vietnam, half of the deaths are at his door). GDUBious was a pretender by comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No, Bush didn't get his immigration reform - and he shouldn't have - but, like a lot of Republicans, I give him a pass for his folly. As for the wars, Bush won his, and Bambi said he wanted to fight the one he's losing, so I don't know what your point is, other than a diversion from reality.

    Clinton, and NAFTA, was a joke. Neither did us much good, and both are national embarrassments to this day. YMMV.

    Nixon? Really? Again? Geez. Still, I do find it fascinating that, to this day, the left won't cop to ending the war - with all that blood on their hands - rather than trying to portray Nixon as losing it. Hey - whatever rows your boat. And now that I'm older, and understand how the Democrats function, Watergate, too, has become understandable. I say let the man die in peace - that's what the Democrats wanted anyway.

    Mr. Best was a traitor to his nation, admitting he put arms in the hands of the enemy.

    Are we talking about the same George W. Bush? A traitor? Please. The guy who "admitted" it also admits it's a tough world out there, and all the decisions a president has to make aren't nice, or clean. Your lack of respect for that reality - for realpolitik - is more traitorous than anything Bush did. Are you still 5?

    Again with the "Againstism". What - you don't like the two party system? Did you seriously think we'd lie down, after throwing flowers at his feet, for him to walk over us? With his "I won" and "Hit back twice as hard" and "Republicans can ride in the back"? Well, now we'll see how you behave - because we're winning, and hitting back twice as hard (and it'll be sustained this time because we don't trust you) so you can ride in the back. Come on - go with us - because it would be awful for you to be against anything. Also hypocritical to your stated beliefs.

    As far as "the Wisconsin governor who is against legal contracts enacted under legal means", I'll let James Taranto answer that one, since I think he's done such a good job of it.

    Palin isn't "strong," she's a quitter,.."

    If you can't acknowledge the reality of that situation (again with reality!) then it's not worth debating.

    She couldn't keep a high school penis out of her daughter.

    Not only vulgar, but a cheap shot since what her daughter puts in her vagina is beyond her control. Did your dad stop you from doing anything after a certain age? Could he? Such a silly debating point is below you.



    I'm doing my part. And a friend of mine said he'll go door-to-door for her, even though he's got a $20.00 bet with me she can't win. What I ask of you is keep up the opposition:

    That's been her strength.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Crack-- The point about GDUBious waging 2 wars by borrowing money from China was that it's not the example that best displays his ineptness -- that's illustrated well enough by his utter failure on immigration, an issue that was important to him.

    The point about NAFTA is that it exemplifies how skilled Clinton was at going around his own party and reaching out to the opposition (something GDUBious couldn't do) to find a way to accomplish their mutual goal of getting more money into the hands of corporations.

    The point about Nixon was that he was much worse than GDUBious -- despite the latter's bumbling miscalculations -- and I think much of that had to do w/ Nixon's maliciousness. I don't think GDUBious was much beyond wrong-headed. When he subverted the Constitution, I believe it was out of irrelevantly good intentions. Nixon wanted to do people harm.

    He got elected in '68 after campaigning on a (now we know wholly illusionary) "secret plan to end the war." That there was no plan places blame upon him for another 6 years of war dead. If the way we disengaged from there was "the plan" then he could have done it right away.

    The Mr. Best reference-- so-dubbed from your allusion to Reagan being named best -- had to do with that befuddled fool putting arms in the hands of Iran and violating laws to do so. He admitted he did it. We should take him at his word.

    The point about Bristol Palin, since this original post was about Sarah Palin, was in reply to one of your Anonymous commenters who suggested-- based on "facts" not in evidence-- that she was somehow able to protect me. The chaos in her house speaks for itself. That she's a quitter IS reality: She quit 4 colleges and quit her state job after less than 3yrs of service.

    Since I haven't mentioned you personally, I'll ignore the raft of the personal remarks directed my way, since this isn't about me and such things are the least interesting part of your site.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jim,

    If you want to compare a guy who's still walking around with the public image of his pants unzipped as a better leader than the guy whose policies are roiling dictators the world over, as we speak, be my guest. But you should keep in mind - since I joined the military 30+ years or so ago (where I learned, more than any civilian seems to, how this stuff affected me personally) I've been paying serious attention - so you're going to have to give better evidence than this.

    There was no comparison, between the rock-solid determination of the Republican Party to stop Bush's immigration reforms and the should-we-do-it-or-shouldn't-we? kinda/sorta resistance Clinton got from the Democrats on NAFTA. I know this because, as a member of both parties, I campaigned against each. To try and pretend, judging each president equally, that those two final results are some kind of referendum on their leadership abilities that put Billy Boy on top - keeping in mind that even Clinton lamented he had few real challenges during his presidency, while Bush was under the gun, in one way or another, since Bush V. Gore - is, like I said, below you. You're, either, not using all of your brainpower or assuming I'm not capable of spotting someone trying to pull a fast one:

    This is a blog mostly about fraud - that second option won't work here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. the guy whose policies are roiling dictators the world over,

    Balderdash. GDUBious' major impact on what's happening in N. Africa is his inability to cope with the liquidity crisis (which was so far removed from govt anyway) that crashed the world economy. In so much that the economy was so bad that a college-educated guy in Tunis wanted to sell apples and when he couldn't, he set himself on fire.

    Otherwise, the US has had almost nothing to do with what's happening. Taking claim for the acts of others is typical RW radio rhetoric: credit Reagan for the end of the Cold War and the '90s economic boom; credit conservatives with Civil Rights Act; so of course they credit GDUBious' misadventure in attacking Iraq for the acts of Saudis for what happens in Tunisia and Egypt.

    Of course we hear now of GDUBious' impact on Libya, ignoring how the sanctions policy was begun by Carter, kicked up by Reagan and maintained through now all the while enhanced by the UN.

    There must be something about the immigration/NAFTA parallel I'm not making clear because the remarks about it are tangents that do more to make my point than rebut it. That there was "rock-solid" same-party opposition is BECAUSE of the ineffective leadership. It's proof. It's the axiomatic evidence that affirms the example.

    Maybe it's the digital quality of the medium that prevents emphasis and inflection that inverts the point.

    Maybe over a beer it would be more obvious.

    Back to Palin, I've been saying for a couple of years now is that the GOP should make her fundraiser-in-chief, as the first commenter says "She'd be great at rallying the troops." But she'd ruin the party's chances in a nat'l election if she ever made it through the primaries. And if she gets beaten in the primaries, her shininess will tarnish.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There must be something about the immigration/NAFTA parallel I'm not making clear because the remarks about it are tangents that do more to make my point than rebut it. That there was "rock-solid" same-party opposition is BECAUSE of the ineffective leadership. It's proof. It's the axiomatic evidence that affirms the example.

    Wrong - it's called "democracy". I love Bush but, good intentions or no, I (and my fellow RWers) disagreed. That doesn't make him a bad leader, just wrong on an important issue. The fact he couldn't bring us around - and we still love him as a great leader - is a strength, not a weakness of anyone. He lost you because you were never with him. I'm with him, just as I'm with you, whether we agree or not. That's what being an American is all about. It's only Democrats who push things almost to civil war (and don't give me any shit there, as countless Dems have told me - thinking, since I'm black, I'd agree - that that's what they want.) That's why we don't trust Democrats:

    I can understand how you, with your constant bleeting on "againstism", seem to miss the point of what we're doing here, Jim, but we're not sheeple - at least we Republicans aren't - we're men and we expect disagreement. A great leader holds no grudge, and Bush never did, so neither have we:

    In that way, too, he's one of the greatest leaders we've ever had.

    Sorry but "Slick Willy" NewAge mind games, like "triangulation", will never be the equal of such honesty and integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jim,

    That she's a quitter IS reality: She quit 4 colleges and quit her state job after less than 3yrs of service.

    Palin isn't "strong," she's a quitter who is afraid of hard questions like "what do you read?"

    I replied:

    If you can't acknowledge the reality of that situation (again with reality!) then it's not worth debating.

    O.K., regarding Palin's "quitting" - is this the reality of what happened or is it not? And, if it is, why don't/can't you acknowledge it?

    And, if you're wrong about your portrayal of Palin and this incident (and you are) what else are you wrong about?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I've gotta say, I spend time on political message boards and the comments sections of news sites and partisan sites on both sides of the aisle, and there have been very few times I've overlapped with level of adulation of the previous President that you express -- "love him as a great leader" and "one of the greatest leaders we've ever had" ... it's hard to believe you're serious.

    Honestly I don't recall any, but there must have been an example or two stated without intentional irony. I just don't remember them specifically.

    He lost you because you were never with him.

    Me thinks thou dost presume too much. After the attacks of 9/11 GDUBious had my support and the support of virtually every other liberal and Democrat-- where else would the 90%+ approval have come from? And I was in favor of going into Afghanistan.

    But then, like almost every other thing he every touched, he fucked it up and I and a vast majority of the rest of the country saw it -- which explains his low 20% approval ratings.

    It's only Democrats who push things almost to civil war

    That's so far beyond hyperbole as to be surreal. And indicates there's really not much further to say.

    Be well

    ReplyDelete
  17. Like almost every other thing he every touched, he fucked it up and I and a vast majority of the rest of the country saw it -- which explains his low 20% approval ratings.

    Yea, what the "vast majority" of the country saw explains the low ratings Harry Truman had when he left office, too. And Scooter Libby divulging Valarie Plame's name. The "vast majority" was sure about that, too. And Kanye West calling Bush a racist. The "vast majority" of the country was sure of that, too. All totally accurate because you - and almost everybody else - believed it, being so well informed. Because, you know, left-wing beliefs are like facts, only better:

    They can be bent so easily - what did Steely Dan call it? Oh yea:

    "Pretzel Logic".

    Yes, those beliefs were all because the public - informed by the Leftstream media - had such a tight grasp on reality back then. But now, since we conservative "Army of Davids" have taken to the internet with our lies, they're just confused and turning right, with pictures of Bush popping up all over the country saying "Miss Me Yet?"

    Sure, Jim, sure.

    BTW - can you explain why it took the public a year to be informed about the John Edwards scandal when we misinformed types knew about it from the very start? He had high approval ratings. And, as far as I know, the public gave them to him because - *ahem* - they were so well informed. As Archie Bunker sang:

    "Those were the days."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dude, there's not much focus left to what you're saying... Scooter Libby, Kanye West, John Edwards.... but you seem to be conflating voting based on GDUbious' crippled economy with some sort of cosmic-level of re-evaluation of his Presidency. You're free to do so, but it doesn't really sell

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dude, there's not much focus left to what you're saying,...you seem to be conflating voting based on GDUbious' crippled economy,...

    Come on, Jim - you see, projection is one reason why talking to libs can be so difficult. Except for "waging 2 wars by borrowing from China" you haven't mentioned the economy before now, but you want to charge me with all over the board? It was you who turned this post into a discussion of W!

    It's fascinating how you all work the same way, too, like using projection. I can talk to any conservative about a liberal we know and, and some point, they're going to tell me about how the Lefty tried to use the old projection trick on him.

    Sure - on a thread about Palin running for POTUS - you can talk about Bush, China, immigration reform, Nixon, Clinton, watergate, Vietnam, NAFTA, W's potentially illegal arms sales, "Againstism", Bristol Palin's pregnancy, and your "time on political message boards", but - lovin' it - I'm lacking in focus when I use three examples ("Scooter Libby, Kanye West, John Edwards") to make a point about the effect of media bias. Nice.

    Look, if it makes you feel more comfortable (because you never have to answer my points) you can direct the conversation your way, so you won't have to deal with any of my points (as I have yours) and can just keep on lobbing, hoping I tire. I never will, but go for it:

    Like Bushy Boy, I'm used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm lacking in focus when I use three examples ("Scooter Libby, Kanye West, John Edwards") to make a point about the effect of media bias.

    Not exactly, you're lacking focus to cite those examples as to why I'm supposedly misinformed.

    The economy reference had to do w/ the elections results, which you cited, and cited erroneously to somehow validate a re-evaluation of GDUBious. That and some "Miss Me Yet?" billboards.

    Sorry if I wasn't clear. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to be precise.

    And no, why should I expect you to tire? It's your blog and you have to fill the maw. I know how it works. But understand, this has gotten tiresome (read as: uninteresting) for me. You'll have to fill the maw without me now.

    Perhaps you'll have another interesting post. I'll check beck sometime

    ReplyDelete
  21. To my mind every person ought to browse on it.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTS ARE BACK ON